supererogation formed a deposit of superabundant good works, which the Pope, as holding the keys of the kingdom of heaven, could unlock and dispense for the benefit of the faithful, so as to pay the debt of the temporal punishment of their sins, which they might still owe to God.

This was the theological defence of the system, which assumed consistency in the hands of the great schoolmen of the thirteenth century, Alexander of Hales (1245), Albertus Magnus (1280), Bonaventura (1274), and S. Thomas Aquinas (1270).1 The language of the last, if the Supplement may be quoted as his, is especially instructive. It betrays a certain amount of uneasiness, and it is clear that Aquinas felt that his task was a difficult one; erroneous opinions on the subject were common, but the Church had approved of indulgences, and therefore they had to be defended.2

1 Alexander of Hales is very strong in insisting that the indulgence avails"ad forum Dei" as well as "ad forum Ecclesiæ," and that it is more than a mere relaxation of canonical penance (Summa, pars iv. 9. 23, art. 1, and see art. 2). "Indulgentiæ et relaxationes fiunt de meritis supererogationis membrorum Christi, quæ sunt spiritalis thesaurus ecclesiæ. Hunc autem thesaurum non est omnium dispensare, sed tantum eorum, qui præcipue vicem Christi gerunt." "Præexistente pœna debitæ et sufficientis contritionis, potest summus pontifex totam pœnam debitam peccatori pœnitenti dimittere." "Probabiliter et verissime præsumitur, quod illis qui sunt in purgatorio potest pontifex facere indulgentias. Nota tamen, quod plura requiruntur ad hoc, quod debito modo fiat indulgentia: scil. potestas clavium ex parte conferentis; ex parte ejus, cui confertur, charitas, credulitas, devotio; inter utrum causa et modus-Potest ergo dici, quod illis qui sunt in purgatorio possunt fieri relaxationes secundum conditiones prædictas per modum suffragii sive impetrationis, non per modum judiciariæ absolutionis sive commutationis." These and other quotations are given in Gieseler's Church History, vol. iii. p. 373, where see also the teaching of Albertus Magnus, In Sent., Lib. IV. dist. 20, arts. 16 and 17; and for the teaching of Aquinas see the Summa Suppl., Pars iii. Q. 25-27.

2

* Cf. Creighton's History of the Papacy, vol. v. p. 60: "The startingpoint of both these theologians [Bonaventura and Aquinas] was prevailing

But although a defence was thus elaborated for the system, it can hardly be seriously maintained that it can be proved from Scripture. The theory of a superabundant "thesaurus ecclesiæ," and of good works that can thus be arbitrarily transferred from one to another, rests on a wholly false notion of our relation to God. The idea of a quantitative satisfaction for all things wrongly done, that has to be made either in this life or in the next, but which "is capable of being commuted for the ceremonial utterance of a prayer or the visit to a shrine, each good for a given number of days, or years, or centuries," 1 can claim no support whatever from Scripture; the notion that men can not only render unto God as much as they are bound to do, but that they may actually do more for His sake than of bounden duty is required, is directly contrary to the words of our Lord, quoted in the Article: When ye have done all that are commanded you, say, We be unprofitable servants (S. Luke xvii. 10). Yet, as a certain scriptural foundation has been alleged for the doctrine, it is necessary to consider the passages on which the maintainers of it have relied. They are mainly two(1) the incident of the rich young ruler, (2) the

practice. Indulgences existed, and therefore were right. It was their business to give a rational explanation of what the Church had thought fit to do." See Bonaventura, In IV. Sent., dist. 20: "Universalis ecclesia has relaxationes acceptat; sed constat quod ipsa non errat, ergo vere fiunt."

are

1 Plumptre's Spirits in Prison, p. 307. If it be said, as it is sometimes, it is a very difficult thing to obtain a real and valid indulgence, for that it is of no avail unless you have "made so good a confession (a very difficult thing to do) as to be free from all sin, even venial"; and unless you on your guard against every occasion of sin afterwards" (Cor Cordi loquitur, p. 233), it can only be replied, that in this case the popular system, whereby indulgences are publicly offered to those who visit certain churches, or perform certain devotions, is seriously misleading, and that the necessity for fulfilling these conditions ought to be publicly stated in every case in which an indulgence is offered.

teaching of our Lord and S. Paul on marriage and virginity.

1. The rich young ruler. The incident referred to is that related in S. Matt. xix. 16-22. It is argued by Bellarmine, who adduces it, that as the young man had "kept the commandments," he had done all that was necessary to obtain eternal life, and that therefore the words, "If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven," contain not a " precept," but a "counsel "; and thus, if the direction had been. followed, a "work of supererogation" would have been performed. To this it has been fairly replied that since the charge was given in answer to the question, "What lack I yet?" it is obvious that something was still wanting, and that there is no room for the notion of works of supererogation here. It is clear from the young man's previous answer that he had formed a very inadequate conception of his duty to God, and of the real range of the claim which God had upon him. It was in order to help him to realise this that the further direction was given, and the conclusion of the narrative shows that there was indeed something "lacking" to him, for "when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions."

2. The teaching of S. Paul on virginity in 1 Cor. vii. has been already referred to, with its implied distinction between "precepts" and "counsels." Our Lord's words, in which He speaks of some who have "made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake" (S. Matt. xix. 12), are also referred to in this connection; and it is inferred that those who follow the "counsel" lay up a superabundant store of good works which can "satisfy" for others, as they are not needed

for those who perform them. Now it may be freely admitted that a distinction may be rightly drawn between "precepts" and "counsels." There are some things which are duties for all alike, which are commanded to all men generally, and can therefore be put in the form of universal "precepts."

There are other things to which all men are clearly not called. It is obvious on the face of it that there can be no "precept to abstain from marriage, or the obedience of men would bring the world to an end. And yet there are those to whom the words of Holy Scripture on the virgin state, or the command to "sell all thou hast come with an imperative voice; and they feel constrained to obey. To them the counsel has become a precept. By obeying they perform no "works of supererogation," but are simply following the Divine voice, which tells their conscience that the charge is for them. rejecting it, they may imperil their salvation, for our Lord Himself says, when speaking on this very subject: "He that is able to receive it, let him receive it " (S. Matt. xix. 12).1

By

If, then, the admission of a distinction between precepts and counsels does not involve the theory of works of supererogation, the whole scriptural foundation for them breaks down, and we may reasonably conclude that they cannot be taught without arrogancy and impiety, and that they are opposed to our Lord's words already referred to: "When ye shall have done all the things that are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants; we have done that which it was our duty to do."

"It is a further question whether a person's salvation may not be very seriously involved in his obeying a call from God, even although that to which he is called may not be in itself necessary to salvation.' -Pusey, The Truth of the Office of the English Church, p. 215.

ARTICLE XV

THIS Article dates from 1553, since which time it has undergone no alteration.

traced to any earlier source.

are treated of in it, viz.

1. Christ's perfect humanity and sinlessness.

Since all these subjects have been previously considered in the Articles (1 and 2 in Article II., and 3 in Articles IX. and X.), it is not altogether easy to see the exact object with which the one before us was added to the series. 1 Hardwick and Bishop Harold 1 Pp. 100, 402.